‘Three Percenter’ Mike Vanderboegh: Enforce Laws And Somebody Is Going To Get Shot
Mike Vanderboegh, a member of the Three Percenters, a “Patriot” movement which is anti-government, was a guest on the Alan Colmes radio show on Monday night. On Saturday, Vanderboegh made the startling claim that we/they need tovote with our guns and he hasn’t toned down the rhetoric.
Vanderboegh announced his spot on the show in a one sentence post titled, “About to be on the Colmes Collectivist Communication Coital Cluster,” and that’s probably his nice side.
Vanderboegh started the show by talking about paranoia which is a really good place to start. The paranoid Three Percenter went on to say, “If you don’t want to fight, get out of our face.” “All we want is to be left alone, Alan, take your nanny state government, take your supposed good intentions that you wrap around this iron fist, take it and shove it,” he said.
You see how nice he is?
Colmes responded, “The people you are calling tyrants were elected as part of due process in a representative government.” The Fox radio host asked, “Why don’t you run for office and show us the way it’s supposed to be done?…These are not dictators. We elected Barack Obama.”
To which Vanderboegh said, “Then go ahead and enforce your laws and watch what happens.” “Your laws are unconstitutional. Somebody is gonna get shot,” he added.
At that point, Colmes had the audacity to explain the legal, nonviolent process in addressing laws which some perceive as unconstitutional. Silly Alan! Vanderboegh explained that that’s when the militarized cops will come and kill him.
“Who is coming to kill you?,” Colmes asked.
Warning: Put on your Collectivist Coital Cluster Hazmat suit before watching just in case Mike’s contagious.
After all of that, Vanderboegh wrote in another post,”We are not of their body, and we might as well forget arguing about it. The only thing to do when Landru sends his minions for you is to militarily defeat them. That will be my last Colmes Collectivist Cluster Coitus.”
Someone needs to attend anger management therapy.
Onward Collectivist Coital Army of Black Muslim Tyrants, onward!
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Anomaly100
441 responses to ‘Three Percenter’ Mike Vanderboegh: Enforce Laws And Somebody Is Going To Get Shot
« Previous 1 2 3 4Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
labman57 July 16th, 2014 at 10:45
These government-hating, gun-toting, faux patriotic nut jobs are little more than self-serving, tea-chugging, mayhem-inciting, conspiracy-addicted anarchists and seditionists eager to implement “Second Amendment remedies” to solve their differences with the Obama administration.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 16th, 2014 at 19:08
eager to implement “Second Amendment remedies”
I tend to disagree. They like to shout that they want revolution. None of them will ever actually go through with it. Revolutions are hard and people die during them. Every one of the people you refer to have zero interest in doing the hard work necessary for a revolution.
They don’t even want other people to revolt. Because, if you revolt, that means disruptions to the fabric of society. That means possible disruptions to the delivery of their Social Security checks or getting Medicare to replace their broken Hoverounds or traveling to Sizzler for Saturday night dinner out.
Besides, it makes ’em feel manly, sitting in their Barcalounger, firing off strongly-worded missives into cyberspace.
Mike in Illinois July 17th, 2014 at 15:03
Here again you are mistaken. Since when do you get to establish the intent of another? You say we shout FOR revolution, when in reality we scream warnings so it doesn’t happen!
When your dad taught you his to use a knife, or mom or grandpa or whomever, didn’t they teach you to cut away from your body instead of toward it? Of course! Why? Well, so you are far less likely to cut yourself if you slip. Was grandad calling you to cut yourself or was he warning you of the possibility of danger because you were making a mistake cutting toward your body?
Look man, we warn AGAINST danger, not lobby FOR it. Now that it’s been overtly explained to you, future claims that we call FOR civil war are easily demonstrated as known lies.
Now it’s your choice to either tell the truth or not. Please choose wisely.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 17th, 2014 at 17:34
“Look man, we warn AGAINST danger, not lobby FOR it. Now that it’s been overtly explained to you, future claims that we call FOR civil war are easily demonstrated as known lies.”
Of course, your first sentence is false, since many of your ilk are calling for civil war (or revolution). So any future claims I make about your guys frothing at the mouth for civil war are true. Overt enough for you?
Indeed, the truth is that you do not want civil war. What you want to do is call for civil war. You want the thrill of being a “patriot.” You want the thrill of being in a militia and defending We, the People from “tyranny.” You want to go out to the backwoods somewhere and prance about playing soldier/Special Forces/ninja. After all, you ARE a militia member. However, you do not want actual civil war.
No, none of you will never revolt because that means hardship and the possibility that you might die. None of you even want others to go out and revolt. It might disrupt the smooth flow of a civil society and disrupt going out to dinner or visiting friends and family. Civil war might destroy the electrical grid and then you couldn’t go on the Internet and be all patriot-like.
You’re not a hypocrite. You’re not even a coward. And, for sure you are not a special snowflake. You’re just a loon addicted to the endorphin high you get from the fantasy of going into action to “save” the country from “tyranny” and to “protect” the Constitution. In the end, you’re just a sad person. My advice: get a cat.
Mike in Illinois July 22nd, 2014 at 14:52
You don’t see your own failure there do you? If someone is calling FOR revolution and civil war, they cannot be my “ilk” because they are calling FOR what I’m arguing AGAINST, what I warn of in attempt to AVOID. Indeed, not only are they not my “ilk” they are quite the opposite.
Care to try again hemi? This time, let TRUTH be your guide. And follow it.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 22nd, 2014 at 15:40
Your ilk argue “against” revolution by calling for it. So, so many times, we read accounts of people like Vanderboegh saying that you might need to vote with your guns. That’s a call for revolution. Back in the day it was “soap box, ballot box, bullet box.” Sharron Angle is famous for her “Second Amendment solution.” Sarah Palin put gunsights on a variety of Democrats up for re-election and then called them something silly (I forgot what it was). There are your people, Mike. You own them.
What’s funny to me, all your “proof” aside, is that the calls for revolution are (1) couched carefully so as not to be an actual call for revolution (a “dog whistle” in other words) and (2) almost invariably accompanied with the call for money.
The truth is clear. None of you are going to revolt any time, ever. All your technical “arguments” like Heller vs DC is of no account because nothing like you desire will ever happen. The sad reality is that the guns laws will probably never be tightened and a few of the more unstable misguided folk of your type will shoot a few people over the next few years.
No action (like the recent one by the Millers) will ever result in a revolution. And, none of your leadership will ever actually implement a revolution. No, they just want your money. (I enjoy calling on wingnuts to send all their money to some wingnut like Vanderboegh. Didn’t do it? Why do you hate America? I bet you know Vanderboegh and all the others are 100% grifters.)
That is the truth. BTW, the large amount of unnecessary capitalization you use is a hallmark of wingnut writing. I can be dismissive of your calls to go educate myself because you’re on a far out fringe, way out of the mainstream of American thinking. I don’t have to rebut your “TRUTH” (as you so wingnut-ly put it) because I already know the truth and it has made me free.
Have a nice life. Don’t shoot anybody.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 22nd, 2014 at 18:35
I thought I’d add a bit more.
The Illinois State Constitution applies to Illinois. If it says everyone is a militia member, then so be it. For the state of Illinois only. You implied that some states do not have such a clause.
So much for your all-inclusive “all citizens are in the militia.”
You mentioned felons and the mentally defective. They are all citizens. They are all in the militia and should all be allowed to operate as militia members, including owning and using guns.
All children are militia members and, as such, should be allowed to be armed at all times, for the security of the State. After all, it’s right there in the Second Amendment. All children should be allowed to carry guns to school and, to defend the state, make their own decisions about where and where to discharge their weapons.
As an “member” of the militia, do you train with other recognized members of the state militia? Do you report for duty? (I do not mean go off to the mountains for “training.” You know what I mean.) Are you paid by the state? Do you use state-provided materials?
Here’s a hot one: what do you think will happen to you, if you report for “duty” when the Illinois National Guard is called up? Do you think you’ll be allowed to carry a weapon and participate in their actions?
Of course won’t be allowed to participate. You don’t want anything of the kind. You just want a justification to wave your guns around in public and act all militia-y. However, you will never, ever carry your guns out on an operation to defend the state or the country. Knowing that gives you the courage to cite Supreme Court decisions, knowing you’ll never be called to fulfill what you think they allow you to do.
Just another Internet tough guy.
Don’t shoot any one, especially a family member. Your guns offer no protection to you, your family or the state. In fact, the odds of an accidental death caused by you or a family member are way higher in your home than in my home.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 08:24
you are so very wrong:
US Code Title 10 Section 311.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
in part:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of….
(b)…. (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Hemidemisemiquaver August 7th, 2014 at 10:31
Hey, I just responded to this. Did you double-post? In any event, I might suggest you stop “telling me off.” Although, I must admit that pointing and laughing at the likes of y’all is rather fun.
Say, why haven’t you gone to Texas, to “patrol” the border? There’s an “invasion” going on and you need to “protect” the Constitution.
See what I mean? You’re only good for mocking because your “ideas” about militia topics are so profoundly silly. Yes, yes, yes, you cite stuff, but it doesn’t mean what you claim it means. Since you will never be convinced you are in error, the only recourse is to either ignore or mock. I choose mocking.
Texas, Brent. Go there. “Patrol” for hours in 100+ degree heat. Get heat stroke. Have fun.
Frickin’ loser.
Mike in Illinois July 16th, 2014 at 11:33
Here’s a thought – if you don’t like guns, don’t buy one, inherit one, own one or carry one. Then, finally understand that you are exercising your Second Amendment right when making that choice. Realize once and for all that the right to arms is also the right to personally oppose them. Arguing for that right to be toothless and meaningless would lead to the power of government to force you to own and carry arms. Think permanent draft.
See this you gun grabbing zealots- the Second Amendment is about REMOVING FROM THE HANDS OF GOVERNMENT the power to DECIDE on a case by case basis whether a RIGHT is really worth insisting upon. This applies equally to owning and carrying arms just as it does NOT doing so. You see, this enumeration protects YOUR decision, individually!
When will you gun haters finally wake up to the reality that you lobby AGAINST your own right while you foolishly think you are simply trying to strip “their” rights away?
Wake up you intellectual lightweights! Open your eyes to the fact that politicians have you arguing against your own rights!
Hemidemisemiquaver July 16th, 2014 at 19:00
“Wake up you intellectual lightweights!”
Hahahahahahah. Oops, sorry. Couldn’t help myself.
Super great. It cracks me up how “well-regulated militia” is completely ignored by your type. Oh yeah, that’s some deep intellectual thinking. Pro tip: you are not (and none of your mates) currently members of a well-regulated militia.
In addition, you do realize the government owns significant amounts of very large weapons. If they wanted to “take” your guns, they would. The truth is, no one is coming for your guns, so quit stroking yourself in public. It’s unseemly.
Lastly, you forgot to include ‘open your eyes, sheeple’ in your little fantasy. You’re slipping.
pelletfarmer July 16th, 2014 at 23:22
Wow, you never learned how to diagram a sentence? That’s alright; maybe ask a grade school teacher for the answers to these questions about the sentence you’re misrepresenting.
1. What is the subject of the sentence?
2. What is the predicate of the sentence?
3.
Distinguish a conditional clause from an explanatory clause and which
do we find here, preceding the independent or primary clause?
Your turn—you gonna give direct answers or dance? Hahaha…and they say nobody can know the future.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 17th, 2014 at 09:02
So, a completely non-responsive answer to some comments that you understood perfectly. Or, perhaps, you have a very low tolerance for the entropy inherent in communication.
A direct answer to what? Your pretensions to intellectual superiority? Pro tip: the claiming of such is a sure sign of desperation, of knowing you’re on the losing side of history. I can see the flop sweat from here.
I pointed out that ammosexuals like yourself completely ignore this:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . . ”
You’re not operating as part of a well-regulated militia and carrying your weapons about with a goofy grin on your face is not a necessary act for the security of the state.
And, in fact you did ignore it (I too have no knowledge of the future, but one can predict with reasonable probability of success) and spent 90% of your answer on information unrelated to the topic.
Dude, answering you in a manner that you do not approve of is not dancing. It’s answering your question.
pelletfarmer July 17th, 2014 at 10:32
Decent dancing, you guys. I see no answer to any of the questions. What happened…no school teachers around?
Darn, if only thoroughbreds were so easy.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 17th, 2014 at 12:44
Uh, the original questions weren’t asked by you. So far, Mike in Illinois did respond to me (and I answered back), but he never made any mention of dancing.
“Darn, if only thoroughbreds were so easy.”
Self-awards of “victory” are a hallmark of the conservative mind. It is actually a self-judgment of how well you know that you are on the wrong side of history.
Bye.
pelletfarmer July 17th, 2014 at 20:22
I bet you’re a big fan of consistency. You’re consistent like a rock, and about as bright. Hey, here’s something you can’t do—live without the knowledge that you haven’t the courage to publicly state the subject and predicate of a simple sentence that you find objectionable.
It’s an interesting ethical point, how reality dishes out “justice” much better than people. It’s in your head now and you can never erase it. You can only evade it, yet more self-destructive behavior on your part. I hope you have a nice day anyway, but you should know that if you choose evasion enough, having a nice day becomes impossible.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 18th, 2014 at 09:48
OK then. I’ll have to live with the horror . . . of something. I’m not sure what it is, but it’s in my head and I can never erase it. Someday reality will deal out “justice” (as opposed to justice) and I will be found objectionable. I’m evading self-destructive behavior, but a nice day will become impossible. I am consistent, but there are things I can’t do. And all of this is an interesting ethical point.
Peter Green said it best:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yq-Fw7C26Y
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 08:23
You are quite wrong, and you have NOT answered the question.
1. What is the subject of the sentence?
2. What is the predicate of the sentence?
Hemidemisemiquaver August 7th, 2014 at 10:22
Wherein I respond to your questions:
1) The subject of a sentence is the person, place, thing, or idea that is doing or being something.
2) A predicate is a word group that comes after the subject to complete the meaning of the sentence or clause.
Glad I could help.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 11:00
Avoiding the issue, as always. Why do you find it so hard to simply state What the 2nd Amendment is for?
Hemidemisemiquaver August 7th, 2014 at 11:20
Why, I do believe it was to empower slave patrols. In other words, it’s not there for what you claim it’s there for.
See Montoya, Inigo for more commentary on this issue.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 11:55
How much do you get paid to troll the internet these days?
Hemidemisemiquaver August 7th, 2014 at 17:00
Pure pleasure, Brent. Pure pleasure. And, yes, George Soros sends me tons of money every month. I also have a well-paying job at FEMA Camp 23. I look forward to re-educating you after Obama takes all your guns. We will be forcing you to live under Islamic Sharia law. You’re gonna love it.
Allow me to recommend “The Rosary Sonatas” by Heinrich Biber. Get the one by Manze and Egarr. It will be much better than buying another gun.
Orrin Cratch July 17th, 2014 at 09:32
What do yo want to bet that “Pelletfarmer” (likely farming with his own “pellets”, if you catch my meaning) does not know what a hemidemisemiquaver is?
Earl Scheib July 17th, 2014 at 09:29
That is a poor argument, this is the same government with large weapons (which I might add are state of the art) that has been fighting mud hut villagers armed with primitive and basic weaponry in Iraq and Afghanistan for over a decade…..because as we have seen time and time again, most recently with ISIS running the table in Iraq, and the resurgence of the Taliban… it’s not the weapons that make the difference, it is the dedication of the people behind the weaponry that make the difference.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 17th, 2014 at 10:09
Shorter Earl Scheib: WOLVERINES!!!!1!!11!
Do you know what the Confederate excuse was for losing? The Federals had more men. They had more guns. After you lose your fantasy revolution, you’ll be saying the same thing.
In any event, there will never be a Second American Revolution. It’s never the right time and it’s always just around the corner. Indeed, whenever there is a gathering of “patriots,” squabbles always erupt concerning who is in charge.
Y’all Qaeda is a scary bunch!
Earl Scheib July 17th, 2014 at 16:57
You ass-ume too much in regards to my associations and wishes.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 17th, 2014 at 20:08
Hey! Hit pretty close to home, didn’t it? No Second American Revolution, Earl. No lining up Democrats and executing them. No heroic battles for you. None of your fantasies will ever come to pass because, in the end, you are not a special snowflake, born and bred to “defend” the Constitution.
The only thing left is to return to the Barcalounger and shout “Beer me, woman!”
I wish you well.
Earl Scheib July 17th, 2014 at 20:44
Close to home? No, but apparently you wish I would fall in line with the presumed stereotype you are looking for.
Again you assume too much.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 18th, 2014 at 09:55
I thought is was spelled “ass-ume.” After all, you are my intellectual and moral superior and you spelled it that way. Now, you spell it ‘assume.” If you want to be a leader in the Second American Revolution (as I can clearly tell you do), you have got to get the big things (like spelling) figured out.
As for all that presumed stereotype idiocy on your part, let me give you a clue:
/s
I’ll bet big money (at least a nickel) you have no clue what that means.
Mike in Illinois July 17th, 2014 at 12:13
Hemi, apparently you don’t understand that just as the “collective right” argument failed, the “militia ” argument failed as well. You see, the militia IS the Citizenry whole. We are all “members” as American Citizens.
Tis you whom has forgotten to be well regulated. I’m betting you don’t handle arms frequently and target shot upon occasion so that you are practiced, efficient and safe in both handling and firing, not to mention cleaning firearms.
See, that puts you at a serious disadvantage were the militia to be called forth en masse. For your training (well regulation) would have to start from scratch, from baseline zero. This while a stated purpose of the amendment was was implemented to avert that very problem.
Ironic isn’t it? You try to use a talking point, a trite and defeated one at that, but you only serve to expose the hypocrisy of that point. Gun controllers have long tried to claim well regulated means forced training and even somehow justify bans, when it’s true meaning is so very opposite. For if arms were as everyday and commonplace as cellphones are today, the militia, the Citizenry, would be far more well regulated, familiar, practiced and safety oriented, than it is.
Question – do you even know that gubmint today justifies “gun control ” laws via “commerce” rather than “well regulated”? Do you seriously not understand that gun control isn’t about guns or even violence, but that it’s about control? Further, since when are you a state a Indian tribe or a foreign power?
It’s time to see that politicians have long duped the Citizenry of this country. Too many have been tricked into arguing various talking points that hide the real debates and serve to divide us rather than unite us. All while they loot the treasure of Americans labor.
I suggest you read the declaration and the constitution. Seriously now. Just give them a read. Think deeply about what the founders established and WHY. Then, consider why the bill of rights became the highest law in the land, most especially why it was done together rather than piecemeal. See, that set of amendments to our constitution work together for very specific outcomes – the most important of which is limiting governments authority expressly.
Laugh all you want to Gandhi had something to say about such tactics.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 17th, 2014 at 12:35
“You see, the militia IS the Citizenry whole.”
You’re never going to be called forth because, if the entire citizenry is the militia, then there is nothing there. What will happen is this: we will continue to see epic failures like Operation American Spring and occasional nut cases who go off and shoot random people (in order to create a revolution), then commit suicide.
I do love the entire citizenry being the militia idea. That explains the propensity for “patriots,” when they gather, to argue about who is in charge and each group threatens to shoot the other. That’s because each group maintains they are the right one, they are the ones with the proper view. That’s genuinely funny.
Oh, and one other thing. The “leadership” of your “movement” will continue to want you to send money to them. You’re being grifted to the max and you call it patriotism. That’s genuinely idiotic.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 08:21
you are so very wrong:
US Code Title 10 Section 311.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
in part:
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of….
(b)…. (2)
the unorganized militia, which consists
of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard
or the Naval Militia.
Hemidemisemiquaver August 7th, 2014 at 10:15
That just means that, if the government needed you, say in a really big war, they have the legal justification to call you up.
It’s a government thing (as in well-regulated), not a self-organized thing, as in “Constitutional” militias.
In any event, most of the “militias” you refer to are either (1) grifters or (2) LARP cosplayers (or both). In the first case, we have Jim Gilchrist, who is “organizing” 3,500 men to go to the border, but he’ll do it in 10 months. In the meantime, send him money. In the second case, we have the people from Murrieta, CA who recently claimed they were having problems with “cartel” members at the Comfort Inn in Van Horn, TX. That feeds into the fantasy that they are “protecting” the Constitution against “invasion.” BTW, there is no Comfort Inn in Van Horn.
In any event, I’m not too worried about all y’all. The cosplay aspect is the driving force, not reality. That’s why, when “militia” members go on “patrol” they probably stay within sight of their cars and they make sure to “patrol” where they are fairly sure no dangerous eight-year-old “cartel” members from Honduras will be found.
Even though “militia” members are as dumb as a bag of hammers, they can learn. They know that carrying real guns could result in an accidental shooting and none of them want to go to jail. They want to put on their camo and carry their guns. That’s it.
After that, it’s back to the air-conditioning, a steak dinner and the hotel porn channel. Send ’em all your money, Brent. Anything less (for you, not me) is un-American.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 10:59
You talk about fantasy and I see that is where you live. I link to the law, written by the US Congress and you ignore it. Your first sentence speaks of the draft, not the militia.
Son, you need to pay more attention to learning what reading comprehension is for ;)
OH, and don’t worry “we” 3-pers don’t fear you and yours. After all, you are a peaceful pacifist, right?
Hemidemisemiquaver August 7th, 2014 at 11:16
Didn’t ignore it. Did respond to it. The un-organized portion provides the legal justification to call up masses of people in the event of war. It’s the justification for the draft. You’re in the militia, therefore you can be drafted. The milita concept and the draft concept are not stand-alone concepts, they go hand-in-hand.
I fail at reading comprehension? Whatever gets you through the night.
By the way, resorting to puerile “taunts” from the get-go shows ya got nothing and that you are well aware of that fact. You can’t even insult in any sophisticated way at all.
I’m not interested in what or who you do or do not fear. You’re an inadequate man. Your fantasy 3-pers lifestyle is definitive proof. Remember the Citadel project, slated for somewhere in northern Idaho? That’s your LARP fantasy right there.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 11:54
“The un-organized portion provides the legal justification to call up
masses of people in the event of war. It’s the justification for the
draft. You’re in the militia, therefore you can be drafted.”
Where do you see that written down? I do not see it in the Cite I provided. You are off into Liberal Fantasy land again….I guess?
“resorting to puerile “taunts” from the get-go shows ya got nothing and that you are well aware of that fact.”
So why do you constantly do that?
“The milita concept and the draft concept are not stand-alone concepts, they go hand-in-hand.”
So you state, yet I see no link, no proof of your assertion. More LibFantasy.
Hemidemisemiquaver August 7th, 2014 at 16:50
What? Provide a cite for what? It doesn’t have to say “we are doing this so that that can be done.”
“. . . do that?” Well, I identify your puerile “taunts” as puerile “taunts” because they are puerile “taunts.”
Say, shouldn’t you be in Texas? You’re letting your country down.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 17:53
You really are THAT clueless? I ask why do you taunt others, you accuse me of doing it and then in the very next sentence you taunt me.
Ron White certainly nailed it. You can’t fix stupid.
Hemidemisemiquaver August 7th, 2014 at 19:32
So, I got under your skin? Funny. Brent, you miss a crucial difference. You taunt. I point out the truth; that you not doing your duty in Texas shows how un-American you are.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Ron White. How original of you. The truth is that you are a coward. You talk, talk, talk about the US Code and you’re doing nothing. You’re not standing watch out there at the tip of the spear. You’re needed down in Texas, to go deep into the weeds, on patrol with your buddies, ones you would die for. You need to have the good grace to give ’em a reach-around in the shower.
C’mon, Brent. You’re a Three-Percenter. You need to go do something. What is is, I do not know. But then, keep in mind, I’m a liberal. You should be out there, deep in the sh*t, protecting me, protecting America.
But, you’re not. You’re at home, at your computer, kicking back with some porn. You talk big on the Internet, but you’re a frickin’ keyboard commando. And, you know it. You’ll never amount to anything. You’ll never get to hang it all out there in defense of your country. You’ll never get the chance to shoot you some Democrats.
*Sob*
Hemidemisemiquaver July 21st, 2014 at 18:54
Well, I learned how the “everyone in the militia” got started. It was in the 1792 Militia Act. If called up (and you weren’t in the militia until you got called up), you had six months to report with supplies and a weapon (a flintlock musket, not an AR-15).
However, all that was superseded by the 1903 Militia Act, under which we are currently governed. So this:
“You see, the militia IS the Citizenry whole. We are all “members” as American Citizens.”
is not objectively true by law or under the Constitution. (Yes, yes, yes, I know the declaration of a RWNJ is true in his own mind, so that makes it OK)
Of course, I note that you wrote “members” as opposed to members. Great. I think that all “members” should carry “guns,” not guns.
In truth, you’re completely wrong about everything, but I’m sure you will answer back pointing out that you are correct. Not according the the 1903 Militia Act or to the Constitution.
Hey, I heard Perry’s gonna call up some National Guard. Why don’t you take your guns and go down there and “assist” them? That’s what “militia” members do and you a big, bad ass “militia” member.
Not going? Why do you hate America?
Mike in Illinois July 22nd, 2014 at 14:48
The national guard as the militia is another of your mistaken notions. Keep reading. You might learn some more.
Like, try article twelve of the Illinois constitution. Try other state constitutions as well. Try SCOTUS decisions like Heller and McDonald. The militia argument you attempt is totally and completely disposed of by basic historical facts. The militia is everyone, hemi. As it stands today, mental defectives (ahem) and felons are exempted, but that takes specific adjudication to accomplish.
You really need to understand that the “militia” argument, the collective right argument and the “right to serve in the military” trifecta of gun controllers talking points have been debunked. You are attempting trite and dismissed talking points that hold no merit.
It’s interesting to me that you are willing to learn so let’s test that. Read Heller v DC. Post back here what you learn about militia oh and posting article twelve of the Illinois Constitution would be nice too. That would prove to everyone on your account that you actually read them and learned some more.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 22nd, 2014 at 15:20
Like I said, if everyone is in the militia, then no one is in it.
Here’s a test for you: go to Texas with all your guns and “assist” the militia (modern term = National Guard). Yeah, they will certainly respect your showing up. After all, you’re in the “militia.”
A state constitution? Dude, go right ahead and attempt to “assist” the Illinois National Guard during the next time they are called out. Heller vs DC, etc will make no difference whatsoever.
And frankly, you know that.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 12:23
just in case you need to SEE where you are WRONG:
“militia (modern term = National Guard).”
WRONG.
US Code Title 10 Section 311.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc…
(a) The militia…consists of….who are not members of the National Guard.
SO, what does the Second Amendment mean?
I will continue to ask that question because you continue to ignore it and not answer it. I will continue to point this out just as hard as you try to obfuscate it.
Hemidemisemiquaver August 7th, 2014 at 17:13
“So, what does the Second Amendment mean?”
As I pointed out in another response, it does not mean what you think it means. The non-crazy view of the 2nd Amend. is that of the National Guard, which meets the criteria of “well-regulated.” That phrase is in the first part of the amendment, the part y’all ignore.
A bunch of men with emotional issues walking about the desert is not what the 2nd Amend. is about.
And, yes, I know the SC has declared that the power to bear arms is vested in individuals. This will eventually be changed and will be seen by istory as a terrible decision.
” I will continue to point this out just as hard as you try to obfuscate it.”
That’s just tiresome, Brent. Why don’t you write me off as a fuzzy-headed liberal, proclaim victory and return to your guns and your stash of porn. (I say that only because conservative states, where conservatives are, tend to be the largest consumers of porn. This is another sign of the inadequacy exhibited by 3-pers.
So, tell me, were you thinking about buying into that Citadel thing in Idaho a year or so ago? What a hilariously bad idea that was and I know you can’t admit that. Man, you are the vertiable definition of inadequate. Gotta go, need to help plan to implement both Fascism and Communism simultaneously in the USA. It’s happening Brent. We’re coming for your guns real soon now. Better send all your money to Glenn Beck.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 17:42
So much typing so little content. You still have not stated what you think it means.
Truth: The National Guard is part of the Army.
Hemidemisemiquaver August 7th, 2014 at 19:20
“You still have not stated what you think it means.”
By your lights, I never will, even though I go over it and over it and over it.
I thought you were big on the “un-organized” militia part. You show me EXACTLY in the US Code you cited where it says that you get to carry guns around in public.
The NG being in the Army? Not relevant. I thought you’re all about “Constitutional” militias. Ya know, going off to the desert with your buddies, drinking beer and taking a few pictures (being careful to not show the cars or that the paved road is 30 feet away).
You’ll never amount to anything. You’ve never “protect” the Constitution. You’ll never “arrest” a “cartel” member. All your fancy talk about the Second Amendment means squat. All you’ll ever do is furiously masturbate with an AR-15.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 20:02
You go over it, around it, under it, and yet you never see it.
The US Code is superseded by the Constitution; the Constitution is the legal authority for the US to take any action.
“Shall not be infringed.” you really DON’T understand that, do you?
You are either ignorant or a troll. I have supplied a link that proves you directly wrong about what the Militia is and you continue to state it is some part of the Army. We all know what the Second Amendment says, but you seem to want to ignore “shall not be infringed”. The Militia can and should be “well-regulated”. The people have the right to keep and bear arms so that the militia has members that have training and practice with those arms. You don’t like that. Tough Shit.
I have a job to work in a factory the next 3 days so I will be unable to post like I did today.
Good day to you.
Hemidemisemiquaver August 7th, 2014 at 20:38
You don’t like that. Tough Shit.
Wow, really got under your skin.
So, why cite US Code and not the Constitution. You cited US Code and I responded with a cogent undermining of your points, so you switch to the Constitution.
“Shall not be infringed.” you really DON’T understand that, do you?
You keep ignoring “well-regulated.” Besides, it is “the people” that shall not be infringed. You individually is not “the people.” “The people” is the government. It’s talking about the right of the state government to not be infringed and it has its root in slave patrols. You don’t like that, so you ignore it.
You gotta go work? An inelegant way to back out of a conversation you’re losing. Frickin’ coward.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 21:04
You are so delusional you are funny and harmless. all the personal attacks do is prove you have nothing relevant to post.
1st “the right of the people peaceably to assemble”
6th “The right of the people to be secure in their persons”
9th “shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
10th “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.”
hmm…. seems like when it says “the people” it means the people.
I like the 10th best for this example as it proves you wrong quite simply.
back to insulting me, I guess ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE
Hemidemisemiquaver August 8th, 2014 at 02:14
“You are so delusional you are funny and harmless. all the personal attacks do is prove you have nothing relevant to post.”
What personal attacks? You being a coward is the truth; how can the truth be an attack? Of course, you disagree with me on your cowardice, so that must prove me to be wrong.
You are, in fact, a keyboard commando. You’re never going to pick up your weapon in defense of the US. You don’t even want to do that since that would be dangerous. You don’t want to go to the border because that would disrupt your life style. You don’t want to do anything except talk.
Your claim about me being delusional does not obviate the fact that it is you with the ideas that a majority of Americans find abhorrent. I’m not the one waving about my right to carry a penis-substitute in public. You are. The overwhelming majority of Americans finds that to be wrong.
It’s not a question of “Does the Constitution allow this?” The question is “Are your type of activities needed in this country?” And the answer that Americans give, in overwhelming numbers, is no.
Sure, go ahead and say “Provide me some cites.” You know just as well as I do that, when your types of activities are polled, Americans reject what you do and what you believe. Not all of them, of course. But enough so as to constitute a clear majority.
I may be funny and harmless, but you will not amount to anything at all. You’ll never get your wish to live “Red Dawn.” You’ll never rise up and start a 3-per “revolution.” There will never be enough of you to do anything but cause a murder here and there. I’m saddened by that thought but, in the main, your type will wind up to be only a pimple on the ass of the USA and nothing more.
Enjoy your irrelevance, Brent. You’ve got nothing but half a dozen guns and 10,000 rounds of ammo that will never, ever be used to kill Democrats.
Wow, sending a message through a song title. Now, that’s cutting. Watch Danny Kirwan. He’s setting the place on fire!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yq-Fw7C26Y
Hemidemisemiquaver August 8th, 2014 at 10:54
I keep forgetting, but now I remembered.
With this example from the 10th Amendment, you are conceding that every other “the people” usage in the Constitution refers to the people in the collective, that is, to the state.
In fact, I myself (with even referring back to the Constitution), can make two references (Preamble and 2nd) to “the people” where it is clear that the intent is the people acting in concert (the government) and not as individuals.
What we can conclude from this is that the reference in the 10th is a mistaken construction and, from all other usages, it is clear that the intent of the Founding Fathers is that the term “the people” refers to the government.
Finally, what is it with wingnuts and their rush to prematurely declare victory? I suppose it comes from your superiority complex which, when paired with your persecution complex, makes for trouble when a gun is in your hands.
By the way, I enjoy the whole 3per concept. Based on your concept, you only need to get to 9.5 million people. The 2000 or so that you have is a REALLY GOOD start. Based on the six years of BHO’s Presidency, it should only take a bit less than 30,000 years to get there.
Please proceed, Brent.
Brent Bushardt August 8th, 2014 at 11:44
OMG your mental gymnastics are fun to watch! Does it hurt when you do that?
When they wrote “the people” it means the people. When they write “the state” it means the state. The law is what it says.
Hemidemisemiquaver August 8th, 2014 at 15:53
Your short response simply denies my point. No proof wahtsoever is offered.
We, the people form the state. They are not separate.
You’re deliberately misrepresenting the Constitution.
Traitor.
Brent Bushardt August 8th, 2014 at 18:20
Simple reading comprehension proves you wrong.
Hemidemisemiquaver August 8th, 2014 at 18:46
“Proof” by assertion is not proof.
Another one bites the dust.
Brent Bushardt August 9th, 2014 at 22:37
Do you have any proof for your idiotic assertion that “the people” means the state? I mean besides many Supreme Court cases that clearly state “the right of the people” does indeed apply to individuals. Oh wait….that proves you wrong.
What planet do you live on? is it always opposite day there?
I can’t wait to see what ridiculousness you come up with now, to continue to show us just how far from reality you have gone.
You are either a troll in which case you are terrible at it; or you are quite the ignorant delusional loner who is angry at the world.
Hemidemisemiquaver August 10th, 2014 at 01:32
“many Supreme Court cases”
DC vs Heller is many? In any event, a back-and-forth about this will accomplish nothing. Heller was wrongly decided and will eventually be overturned.
The rest of your comment is puerile. I especially love the troll comment. It must be a wingnut thing because every one I have talked to eventually gets around to the troll accusation. You must think it has some type of magical power that “wins” a discussion for you.
The fact remains that you are a 3per. That, in and of itself, is delusional. Playing with some of your guns out in public can be done in a number of states.
However, the chances of you using your guns in a 3per way will never occur. And, if I am wrong and it does, you will be crushed into oblivion very quickly. There are, on a national basis, hardly any 3pers, you have no organization of a military nature and all you have are a few guns in your closet. Yet, you dream of revolution. That’s a delusion if I’ve ever seen one.
You go on and on about the Constitution, but you ignore my comments on the reality you face, the fact that, as a 3per, nothing will ever happen in the manner you hope for. What will happen is that the occasional person (3per or not) will kill some innocent people, hoping to start the revolution. Those people will either be killed or arrested, convicted and sent away for a long time. Look up Byron Williams as an example of what I mean.
Sent Vanderboegh any money lately? You should because he needs some more steak dinners on your dime. And you call me delusional? You poor, sad, inadequate little man.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 08:42
You keep thinking of a regulated militia, not a well-regulated militia. Back to school for you!
Orrin Cratch July 17th, 2014 at 09:30
Mike in Illinois sounds like he is having a case of the Mondays. On Tuesday.
Note to Mike: there are effective anti-depressants out there. They’ll even help with that obvious anger management issue. And they’re covered under Obamacare.
Mike in Illinois July 17th, 2014 at 11:51
Orrin, there is no anger there, I wasn’t hollering – just emphasizing certain words that even SCOTUS has admitted. Interestingly, you demonstrated that you didn’t know that. Also, there is no anger because I will keep and bear my arms regardless of whether others approve or disapprove.
See Orrin, I actual feel sorrow for you folks, not anger or even disdain. As I said, you argue against your own right (not to own or carry) apparently without realizing it. Try seeing it from this angle – the right to own and carry is the same as the right not to. The power to decide belongs to you just as it belongs to me. A right, both privilege and immunity, means it is for the individual to decide upon, not government or even the democratic vote.
Claiming otherwise, as you portend, would put you in a position of saying your right to speak, to exercise religion, to assemble etc would be subject to government allowance and the whims of any particular democratic vote. You would be saying that your right to remain silent or even have a trial is open to a vote and could be simply removed from you by government mandate or as a result of a democratic vote.
I know some folks like to play as if “guns are different” but you have lost that position in the highest court possible. To quote – “The Second Amendment is no different.”
So instead of personal attacks, try offering some actual substance. You could try this – for some change we can all believe in.
Yes you have the right to own guns and carry guns. Yes you can by right even use them in defense of yourself your kin and even your property And you can even, by right carry them, long gun or handgun both openly and concealed, BUT no rights are unlimited and what is stated is as far as the Second goes. Meaning of course that one cannot use arms to rob rape steal or otherwise do actual harm to other people or their property with them. If a person does so, then serious punishment is afoot.
If you people would get on that track, you would find unity with gun rights activists and “hunters” alike. You see Orrin, guns aren’t the problem, which proves that banning and “control” over them isn’t the solution. How some people abuse them is the problem, proving that the solution rests in addressing people and their actions (as opposed to addressing inanimate objects).
I’m game for debate with you on various levels. We can talk about self evident, we can talk about enumeration, incorporation, privileges and immunities, due process, case law, commerce clause or any other angles you might want to explore and share and learn. The question now is pretty simple – is what you offered already all you have to offer or do you actually have substance to bring to the table beyond the politics of personal destruction?
NotALiar July 21st, 2014 at 00:50
What about the rights of my child sitting in a restaurant when six people with AR 15’s slung over their shoulders walk in and sit down next to us. Apparently she doesn’t have the right not to be scared and intimidated at arby’s.
Mike in Illinois July 22nd, 2014 at 15:11
First, nothing compels you to go to Arby’s. You make a choice to go there and have every right not to do so. Second, if your child is scare, it’s your responsibility to deal with that – same as if you are scared. Third, are you and your child scared when a person talks, meets a set of friends or carries a bible or a laptop? No? Why not? See, those are just rights bring exercised, and shouldn’t scare you. A person exercising their right to bear arms isn’t any different! You have just been conditioned to believe there is a difference. An irrational fear you exhibit there (kinda like me driving over a bridge…).
Now, if a person attempts to make YOU bless your curly fries before you eat them, they are indeed violating your rights. They are imposing THEIR decision upon you, attempting to anyway. Them carrying a gun is like them blessing their lunch. If they attempt to force YOU to carry, they are violating your rights. See the comparison? See the difference?
A person CARRYING a firearm should not concern you or scare you – as an aside, is this fear present when police officers openly carry arms? – though a person pointing one at you demanding your wallet or purse certainly could. (See the difference there?).
You certainly have a right to your own irrational fears – as I do mine- however, the presence of those fears does not translate into the authority to remove the rights ENUMERATED that belong to another.
I submit to you that you should stop looking at the gun and start looking at the person and their actual actions. Try thinking about this reality – for every person you SEE with a gun, ten twenty thirty more are carrying concealed! Are you now scared of everyone cuz they MIGHT be carrying? Is your daughter? See the whole irrational part yet? Seriously. Please see that people all around you carry guns both “legally” and “illegally” every day. But you and your family aren’t experiencing any trouble at Arby’s beyond your own within-your-own-mind “fear”. So I’ll close with … What exactly are you scared of and why? And most specifically. What right is it you refer to to begin with – a right not be scared? Ummm that right exists to be sure. It rests within your right to defend yourself…..interestingly, that’s found in the right to keep and bear arms……see it yet?
NotALiar July 22nd, 2014 at 15:28
As much as I disagree with you, I do appreciate you not responding “because” or something like that.
Mike in Illinois July 16th, 2014 at 11:33
Here’s a thought – if you don’t like guns, don’t buy one, inherit one, own one or carry one. Then, finally understand that you are exercising your Second Amendment right when making that choice. Realize once and for all that the right to arms is also the right to personally oppose them. Arguing for that right to be toothless and meaningless would lead to the power of government to force you to own and carry arms. Think permanent draft.
See this you gun grabbing zealots- the Second Amendment is about REMOVING FROM THE HANDS OF GOVERNMENT the power to DECIDE on a case by case basis whether a RIGHT is really worth insisting upon. This applies equally to owning and carrying arms just as it does NOT doing so. You see, this enumeration protects YOUR decision, individually!
When will you gun haters finally wake up to the reality that you lobby AGAINST your own right while you foolishly think you are simply trying to strip “their” rights away?
Wake up you intellectual lightweights! Open your eyes to the fact that politicians have you arguing against your own rights!
Hemidemisemiquaver July 16th, 2014 at 19:00
“Wake up you intellectual lightweights!”
Hahahahahahah. Oops, sorry. Couldn’t help myself.
Super great. It cracks me up how “well-regulated militia” is completely ignored by your type. Oh yeah, that’s some deep intellectual thinking. Pro tip: you are not (and none of your mates) currently members of a well-regulated militia.
In addition, you do realize the government owns significant amounts of very large weapons. If they wanted to “take” your guns, they would. The truth is, no one is coming for your guns, so quit stroking yourself in public. It’s unseemly.
Lastly, you forgot to include ‘open your eyes, sheeple’ in your little fantasy. You’re slipping.
pelletfarmer July 16th, 2014 at 23:22
Wow, you never learned how to diagram a sentence? That’s alright; maybe ask a grade school teacher for the answers to these questions about the sentence you’re misrepresenting.
1. What is the subject of the sentence?
2. What is the predicate of the sentence?
3.
Distinguish a conditional clause from an explanatory clause and which
do we find here, preceding the independent or primary clause?
Your turn—you gonna give direct answers or dance? Hahaha…and they say nobody can know the future.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 17th, 2014 at 09:02
So, a completely non-responsive answer to some comments that you understood perfectly. Or, perhaps, you have a very low tolerance for the entropy inherent in communication.
A direct answer to what? Your pretensions to intellectual superiority? Pro tip: the claiming of such is a sure sign of desperation, of knowing you’re on the losing side of history. I can see the flop sweat from here.
I pointed out that ammosexuals like yourself completely ignore this:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . . ”
You’re not operating as part of a well-regulated militia and carrying your weapons about with a goofy grin on your face is not a necessary act for the security of the state.
And, in fact you did ignore it (I too have no knowledge of the future, but one can predict with reasonable probability of success) and spent 90% of your answer on information unrelated to the topic.
Dude, answering you in a manner that you do not approve of is not dancing. It’s answering your question.
pelletfarmer July 17th, 2014 at 10:32
Decent dancing, you guys. I see no answer to any of the questions. What happened…no school teachers around?
Darn, if only thoroughbreds were so easy.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 17th, 2014 at 12:44
Uh, the original questions weren’t asked by you. So far, Mike in Illinois did respond to me (and I answered back), but he never made any mention of dancing.
“Darn, if only thoroughbreds were so easy.”
Self-awards of “victory” are a hallmark of the conservative mind. It is actually a self-judgment of how well you know that you are on the wrong side of history.
Bye.
pelletfarmer July 17th, 2014 at 20:22
I bet you’re a big fan of consistency. You’re consistent like a rock, and about as bright. Hey, here’s something you can’t do—live without the knowledge that you haven’t the courage to publicly state the subject and predicate of a simple sentence that you find objectionable.
It’s an interesting ethical point, how reality dishes out “justice” much better than people. It’s in your head now and you can never erase it. You can only evade it, yet more self-destructive behavior on your part. I hope you have a nice day anyway, but you should know that if you choose evasion enough, having a nice day becomes impossible.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 18th, 2014 at 09:48
OK then. I’ll have to live with the horror . . . of something. I’m not sure what it is, but it’s in my head and I can never erase it. Someday reality will deal out “justice” (as opposed to justice) and I will be found objectionable. I’m evading self-destructive behavior, but a nice day will become impossible. I am consistent, but there are things I can’t do. And all of this is an interesting ethical point.
Peter Green said it best:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yq-Fw7C26Y
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 08:23
You are quite wrong, and you have NOT answered the question.
1. What is the subject of the sentence?
2. What is the predicate of the sentence?
Hemidemisemiquaver August 7th, 2014 at 10:22
Wherein I respond to your questions:
1) The subject of a sentence is the person, place, thing, or idea that is doing or being something.
2) A predicate is a word group that comes after the subject to complete the meaning of the sentence or clause.
Glad I could help.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 11:00
Avoiding the issue, as always. Why do you find it so hard to simply state What the 2nd Amendment is for?
Hemidemisemiquaver August 7th, 2014 at 11:20
Why, I do believe it was to empower slave patrols. In other words, it’s not there for what you claim it’s there for.
See Montoya, Inigo for more commentary on this issue.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 11:55
How much do you get paid to troll the internet these days?
Hemidemisemiquaver August 7th, 2014 at 17:00
Pure pleasure, Brent. Pure pleasure. And, yes, George Soros sends me tons of money every month. I also have a well-paying job at FEMA Camp 23. I look forward to re-educating you after Obama takes all your guns. We will be forcing you to live under Islamic Sharia law. You’re gonna love it.
Allow me to recommend “The Rosary Sonatas” by Heinrich Biber. Get the one by Manze and Egarr. It will be much better than buying another gun.
Orrin Cratch July 17th, 2014 at 09:32
What do yo want to bet that “Pelletfarmer” (likely farming with his own “pellets”, if you catch my meaning) does not know what a hemidemisemiquaver is?
Serendipity July 17th, 2014 at 09:29
That is a poor argument, this is the same government with large weapons (which I might add are state of the art) that has been fighting mud hut villagers armed with primitive and basic weaponry in Iraq and Afghanistan for over a decade…..because as we have seen time and time again, most recently with ISIS running the table in Iraq, and the resurgence of the Taliban… it’s not the weapons that make the difference, it is the dedication of the people behind the weaponry that make the difference.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 17th, 2014 at 10:09
Shorter Earl Scheib: WOLVERINES!!!!1!!11!
Do you know what the Confederate excuse was for losing? The Federals had more men. They had more guns. After you lose your fantasy revolution, you’ll be saying the same thing.
In any event, there will never be a Second American Revolution. It’s never the right time and it’s always just around the corner. Indeed, whenever there is a gathering of “patriots,” squabbles always erupt concerning who is in charge.
Y’all Qaeda is a scary bunch!
Serendipity July 17th, 2014 at 16:57
You ass-ume too much in regards to my associations and wishes.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 17th, 2014 at 20:08
Hey! Hit pretty close to home, didn’t it? No Second American Revolution, Earl. No lining up Democrats and executing them. No heroic battles for you. None of your fantasies will ever come to pass because, in the end, you are not a special snowflake, born and bred to “defend” the Constitution.
The only thing left is to return to the Barcalounger and shout “Beer me, woman!”
I wish you well.
Serendipity July 17th, 2014 at 20:44
Close to home? No, but apparently you wish I would fall in line with the presumed stereotype you are looking for.
Again you assume too much.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 18th, 2014 at 09:55
I thought is was spelled “ass-ume.” After all, you are my intellectual and moral superior and you spelled it that way. Now, you spell it ‘assume.” If you want to be a leader in the Second American Revolution (as I can clearly tell you do), you have got to get the big things (like spelling) figured out.
As for all that presumed stereotype idiocy on your part, let me give you a clue:
/s
I’ll bet big money (at least a nickel) you have no clue what that means.
Mike in Illinois July 17th, 2014 at 12:13
Hemi, apparently you don’t understand that just as the “collective right” argument failed, the “militia ” argument failed as well. You see, the militia IS the Citizenry whole. We are all “members” as American Citizens.
Tis you whom has forgotten to be well regulated. I’m betting you don’t handle arms frequently and target shot upon occasion so that you are practiced, efficient and safe in both handling and firing, not to mention cleaning firearms.
See, that puts you at a serious disadvantage were the militia to be called forth en masse. For your training (well regulation) would have to start from scratch, from baseline zero. This while a stated purpose of the amendment was was implemented to avert that very problem.
Ironic isn’t it? You try to use a talking point, a trite and defeated one at that, but you only serve to expose the hypocrisy of that point. Gun controllers have long tried to claim well regulated means forced training and even somehow justify bans, when it’s true meaning is so very opposite. For if arms were as everyday and commonplace as cellphones are today, the militia, the Citizenry, would be far more well regulated, familiar, practiced and safety oriented, than it is.
Question – do you even know that gubmint today justifies “gun control ” laws via “commerce” rather than “well regulated”? Do you seriously not understand that gun control isn’t about guns or even violence, but that it’s about control? Further, since when are you a state a Indian tribe or a foreign power?
It’s time to see that politicians have long duped the Citizenry of this country. Too many have been tricked into arguing various talking points that hide the real debates and serve to divide us rather than unite us. All while they loot the treasure of Americans labor.
I suggest you read the declaration and the constitution. Seriously now. Just give them a read. Think deeply about what the founders established and WHY. Then, consider why the bill of rights became the highest law in the land, most especially why it was done together rather than piecemeal. See, that set of amendments to our constitution work together for very specific outcomes – the most important of which is limiting governments authority expressly.
Laugh all you want to Gandhi had something to say about such tactics.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 17th, 2014 at 12:35
“You see, the militia IS the Citizenry whole.”
You’re never going to be called forth because, if the entire citizenry is the militia, then there is nothing there. What will happen is this: we will continue to see epic failures like Operation American Spring and occasional nut cases who go off and shoot random people (in order to create a revolution), then commit suicide.
I do love the entire citizenry being the militia idea. That explains the propensity for “patriots,” when they gather, to argue about who is in charge and each group threatens to shoot the other. That’s because each group maintains they are the right one, they are the ones with the proper view. That’s genuinely funny.
Oh, and one other thing. The “leadership” of your “movement” will continue to want you to send money to them. You’re being grifted to the max and you call it patriotism. That’s genuinely idiotic.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 08:21
you are so very wrong:
US Code Title 10 Section 311.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
in part:
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of….
(b)…. (2)
the unorganized militia, which consists
of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard
or the Naval Militia.
Hemidemisemiquaver August 7th, 2014 at 10:15
That just means that, if the government needed you, say in a really big war, they have the legal justification to call you up.
It’s a government thing (as in well-regulated), not a self-organized thing, as in “Constitutional” militias.
In any event, most of the “militias” you refer to are either (1) grifters or (2) LARP cosplayers (or both). In the first case, we have Jim Gilchrist, who is “organizing” 3,500 men to go to the border, but he’ll do it in 10 months. In the meantime, send him money. In the second case, we have the people from Murrieta, CA who recently claimed they were having problems with “cartel” members at the Comfort Inn in Van Horn, TX. That feeds into the fantasy that they are “protecting” the Constitution against “invasion.” BTW, there is no Comfort Inn in Van Horn.
In any event, I’m not too worried about all y’all. The cosplay aspect is the driving force, not reality. That’s why, when “militia” members go on “patrol” they probably stay within sight of their cars and they make sure to “patrol” where they are fairly sure no dangerous eight-year-old “cartel” members from Honduras will be found.
Even though “militia” members are as dumb as a bag of hammers, they can learn. They know that carrying real guns could result in an accidental shooting and none of them want to go to jail. They want to put on their camo and carry their guns. That’s it.
After that, it’s back to the air-conditioning, a steak dinner and the hotel porn channel. Send ’em all your money, Brent. Anything less (for you, not me) is un-American.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 10:59
You talk about fantasy and I see that is where you live. I link to the law, written by the US Congress and you ignore it. Your first sentence speaks of the draft, not the militia.
Son, you need to pay more attention to learning what reading comprehension is for ;)
OH, and don’t worry “we” 3-pers don’t fear you and yours. After all, you are a peaceful pacifist, right?
Hemidemisemiquaver August 7th, 2014 at 11:16
Didn’t ignore it. Did respond to it. The un-organized portion provides the legal justification to call up masses of people in the event of war. It’s the justification for the draft. You’re in the militia, therefore you can be drafted. The milita concept and the draft concept are not stand-alone concepts, they go hand-in-hand.
I fail at reading comprehension? Whatever gets you through the night.
By the way, resorting to puerile “taunts” from the get-go shows ya got nothing and that you are well aware of that fact. You can’t even insult in any sophisticated way at all.
I’m not interested in what or who you do or do not fear. You’re an inadequate man. Your fantasy 3-pers lifestyle is definitive proof. Remember the Citadel project, slated for somewhere in northern Idaho? That’s your LARP fantasy right there.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 11:54
“The un-organized portion provides the legal justification to call up
masses of people in the event of war. It’s the justification for the
draft. You’re in the militia, therefore you can be drafted.”
Where do you see that written down? I do not see it in the Cite I provided. You are off into Liberal Fantasy land again….I guess?
“resorting to puerile “taunts” from the get-go shows ya got nothing and that you are well aware of that fact.”
So why do you constantly do that?
“The milita concept and the draft concept are not stand-alone concepts, they go hand-in-hand.”
So you state, yet I see no link, no proof of your assertion. More LibFantasy.
Hemidemisemiquaver August 7th, 2014 at 16:50
What? Provide a cite for what? It doesn’t have to say “we are doing this so that that can be done.”
“. . . do that?” Well, I identify your puerile “taunts” as puerile “taunts” because they are puerile “taunts.”
Say, shouldn’t you be in Texas? You’re letting your country down.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 17:53
You really are THAT clueless? I ask why do you taunt others, you accuse me of doing it and then in the very next sentence you taunt me.
Ron White certainly nailed it. You can’t fix stupid.
Hemidemisemiquaver August 7th, 2014 at 19:32
So, I got under your skin? Funny. Brent, you miss a crucial difference. You taunt. I point out the truth; that you not doing your duty in Texas shows how un-American you are.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Ron White. How original of you. The truth is that you are a coward. You talk, talk, talk about the US Code and you’re doing nothing. You’re not standing watch out there at the tip of the spear. You’re needed down in Texas, to go deep into the weeds, on patrol with your buddies, ones you would die for. You need to have the good grace to give ’em a reach-around in the shower.
C’mon, Brent. You’re a Three-Percenter. You need to go do something. What is is, I do not know. But then, keep in mind, I’m a liberal. You should be out there, deep in the sh*t, protecting me, protecting America.
But, you’re not. You’re at home, at your computer, kicking back with some porn. You talk big on the Internet, but you’re a frickin’ keyboard commando. And, you know it. You’ll never amount to anything. You’ll never get to hang it all out there in defense of your country. You’ll never get the chance to shoot you some Democrats.
*Sob*
Hemidemisemiquaver July 21st, 2014 at 18:54
Well, I learned how the “everyone in the militia” got started. It was in the 1792 Militia Act. If called up (and you weren’t in the militia until you got called up), you had six months to report with supplies and a weapon (a flintlock musket, not an AR-15).
However, all that was superseded by the 1903 Militia Act, under which we are currently governed. So this:
“You see, the militia IS the Citizenry whole. We are all “members” as American Citizens.”
is not objectively true by law or under the Constitution. (Yes, yes, yes, I know the declaration of a RWNJ is true in his own mind, so that makes it OK)
Of course, I note that you wrote “members” as opposed to members. Great. I think that all “members” should carry “guns,” not guns.
In truth, you’re completely wrong about everything, but I’m sure you will answer back pointing out that you are correct. Not according the the 1903 Militia Act or to the Constitution.
Hey, I heard Perry’s gonna call up some National Guard. Why don’t you take your guns and go down there and “assist” them? That’s what “militia” members do and you a big, bad ass “militia” member.
Not going? Why do you hate America?
Mike in Illinois July 22nd, 2014 at 14:48
The national guard as the militia is another of your mistaken notions. Keep reading. You might learn some more.
Like, try article twelve of the Illinois constitution. Try other state constitutions as well. Try SCOTUS decisions like Heller and McDonald. The militia argument you attempt is totally and completely disposed of by basic historical facts. The militia is everyone, hemi. As it stands today, mental defectives (ahem) and felons are exempted, but that takes specific adjudication to accomplish.
You really need to understand that the “militia” argument, the collective right argument and the “right to serve in the military” trifecta of gun controllers talking points have been debunked. You are attempting trite and dismissed talking points that hold no merit.
It’s interesting to me that you are willing to learn so let’s test that. Read Heller v DC. Post back here what you learn about militia oh and posting article twelve of the Illinois Constitution would be nice too. That would prove to everyone on your account that you actually read them and learned some more.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 22nd, 2014 at 15:20
Like I said, if everyone is in the militia, then no one is in it.
Here’s a test for you: go to Texas with all your guns and “assist” the militia (modern term = National Guard). Yeah, they will certainly respect your showing up. After all, you’re in the “militia.”
A state constitution? Dude, go right ahead and attempt to “assist” the Illinois National Guard during the next time they are called out. Heller vs DC, etc will make no difference whatsoever.
And frankly, you know that.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 12:23
just in case you need to SEE where you are WRONG:
“militia (modern term = National Guard).”
WRONG.
US Code Title 10 Section 311.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc…
(a) The militia…consists of….who are not members of the National Guard.
SO, what does the Second Amendment mean?
I will continue to ask that question because you continue to ignore it and not answer it. I will continue to point this out just as hard as you try to obfuscate it.
Hemidemisemiquaver August 7th, 2014 at 17:13
“So, what does the Second Amendment mean?”
As I pointed out in another response, it does not mean what you think it means. The non-crazy view of the 2nd Amend. is that of the National Guard, which meets the criteria of “well-regulated.” That phrase is in the first part of the amendment, the part y’all ignore.
A bunch of men with emotional issues walking about the desert is not what the 2nd Amend. is about.
And, yes, I know the SC has declared that the power to bear arms is vested in individuals. This will eventually be changed and will be seen by istory as a terrible decision.
” I will continue to point this out just as hard as you try to obfuscate it.”
That’s just tiresome, Brent. Why don’t you write me off as a fuzzy-headed liberal, proclaim victory and return to your guns and your stash of porn. (I say that only because conservative states, where conservatives are, tend to be the largest consumers of porn. This is another sign of the inadequacy exhibited by 3-pers.
So, tell me, were you thinking about buying into that Citadel thing in Idaho a year or so ago? What a hilariously bad idea that was and I know you can’t admit that. Man, you are the vertiable definition of inadequate. Gotta go, need to help plan to implement both Fascism and Communism simultaneously in the USA. It’s happening Brent. We’re coming for your guns real soon now. Better send all your money to Glenn Beck.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 17:42
So much typing so little content. You still have not stated what you think it means.
Truth: The National Guard is part of the Army.
Hemidemisemiquaver August 7th, 2014 at 19:20
“You still have not stated what you think it means.”
By your lights, I never will, even though I go over it and over it and over it.
I thought you were big on the “un-organized” militia part. You show me EXACTLY in the US Code you cited where it says that you get to carry guns around in public.
The NG being in the Army? Not relevant. I thought you’re all about “Constitutional” militias. Ya know, going off to the desert with your buddies, drinking beer and taking a few pictures (being careful to not show the cars or that the paved road is 30 feet away).
You’ll never amount to anything. You’ve never “protect” the Constitution. You’ll never “arrest” a “cartel” member. All your fancy talk about the Second Amendment means squat. All you’ll ever do is furiously masturbate with an AR-15.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 20:02
You go over it, around it, under it, and yet you never see it.
The US Code is superseded by the Constitution; the Constitution is the legal authority for the US to take any action.
“Shall not be infringed.” you really DON’T understand that, do you?
You are either ignorant or a troll. I have supplied a link that proves you directly wrong about what the Militia is and you continue to state it is some part of the Army. We all know what the Second Amendment says, but you seem to want to ignore “shall not be infringed”. The Militia can and should be “well-regulated”. The people have the right to keep and bear arms so that the militia has members that have training and practice with those arms. You don’t like that. Tough Shit.
I have a job to work in a factory the next 3 days so I will be unable to post like I did today.
Good day to you.
Hemidemisemiquaver August 7th, 2014 at 20:38
You don’t like that. Tough Shit.
Wow, really got under your skin.
So, why cite US Code and not the Constitution. You cited US Code and I responded with a cogent undermining of your points, so you switch to the Constitution.
“Shall not be infringed.” you really DON’T understand that, do you?
You keep ignoring “well-regulated.” Besides, it is “the people” that shall not be infringed. You individually is not “the people.” “The people” is the government. It’s talking about the right of the state government to not be infringed and it has its root in slave patrols. You don’t like that, so you ignore it.
You gotta go work? An inelegant way to back out of a conversation you’re losing. Frickin’ coward.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 21:04
You are so delusional you are funny and harmless. all the personal attacks do is prove you have nothing relevant to post.
1st “the right of the people peaceably to assemble”
6th “The right of the people to be secure in their persons”
9th “shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
10th “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.”
hmm…. seems like when it says “the people” it means the people.
I like the 10th best for this example as it proves you wrong quite simply.
back to insulting me, I guess ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE
Hemidemisemiquaver August 8th, 2014 at 02:14
“You are so delusional you are funny and harmless. all the personal attacks do is prove you have nothing relevant to post.”
What personal attacks? You being a coward is the truth; how can the truth be an attack? Of course, you disagree with me on your cowardice, so that must prove me to be wrong.
You are, in fact, a keyboard commando. You’re never going to pick up your weapon in defense of the US. You don’t even want to do that since that would be dangerous. You don’t want to go to the border because that would disrupt your life style. You don’t want to do anything except talk.
Your claim about me being delusional does not obviate the fact that it is you with the ideas that a majority of Americans find abhorrent. I’m not the one waving about my right to carry a penis-substitute in public. You are. The overwhelming majority of Americans finds that to be wrong.
It’s not a question of “Does the Constitution allow this?” The question is “Are your type of activities needed in this country?” And the answer that Americans give, in overwhelming numbers, is no.
Sure, go ahead and say “Provide me some cites.” You know just as well as I do that, when your types of activities are polled, Americans reject what you do and what you believe. Not all of them, of course. But enough so as to constitute a clear majority.
I may be funny and harmless, but you will not amount to anything at all. You’ll never get your wish to live “Red Dawn.” You’ll never rise up and start a 3-per “revolution.” There will never be enough of you to do anything but cause a murder here and there. I’m saddened by that thought but, in the main, your type will wind up to be only a pimple on the ass of the USA and nothing more.
Enjoy your irrelevance, Brent. You’ve got nothing but half a dozen guns and 10,000 rounds of ammo that will never, ever be used to kill Democrats.
Wow, sending a message through a song title. Now, that’s cutting. Watch Danny Kirwan. He’s setting the place on fire!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yq-Fw7C26Y
Hemidemisemiquaver August 8th, 2014 at 10:54
I keep forgetting, but now I remembered.
With this example from the 10th Amendment, you are conceding that every other “the people” usage in the Constitution refers to the people in the collective, that is, to the state.
In fact, I myself (with even referring back to the Constitution), can make two references (Preamble and 2nd) to “the people” where it is clear that the intent is the people acting in concert (the government) and not as individuals.
What we can conclude from this is that the reference in the 10th is a mistaken construction and, from all other usages, it is clear that the intent of the Founding Fathers is that the term “the people” refers to the government.
Finally, what is it with wingnuts and their rush to prematurely declare victory? I suppose it comes from your superiority complex which, when paired with your persecution complex, makes for trouble when a gun is in your hands.
By the way, I enjoy the whole 3per concept. Based on your concept, you only need to get to 9.5 million people. The 2000 or so that you have is a REALLY GOOD start. Based on the six years of BHO’s Presidency, it should only take a bit less than 30,000 years to get there.
Please proceed, Brent.
Brent Bushardt August 8th, 2014 at 11:44
OMG your mental gymnastics are fun to watch! Does it hurt when you do that?
When they wrote “the people” it means the people. When they write “the state” it means the state. The law is what it says.
Hemidemisemiquaver August 8th, 2014 at 15:53
Your short response simply denies my point. No proof wahtsoever is offered.
We, the people form the state. They are not separate.
You’re deliberately misrepresenting the Constitution.
Traitor.
Brent Bushardt August 8th, 2014 at 18:20
Simple reading comprehension proves you wrong.
Hemidemisemiquaver August 8th, 2014 at 18:46
“Proof” by assertion is not proof.
Another one bites the dust.
By the way, Big B, you didn’t respond in any substantive way to my point about the ONLY use of “the people” as individuals in the Constitution is in the 10th. EVERYWHERE else it means the government and that is clear by the context.
Oh yeah, you asserted I’m wrong. Yeah man, you are one tough hombre at argumentation. I’m really scared. And delusional too. If by delusional, you mean I’m correct.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSutFqtkHTs
Brent Bushardt August 9th, 2014 at 22:37
Do you have any proof for your idiotic assertion that “the people” means the state? I mean besides many Supreme Court cases that clearly state “the right of the people” does indeed apply to individuals. Oh wait….that proves you wrong.
What planet do you live on? is it always opposite day there?
I can’t wait to see what ridiculousness you come up with now, to continue to show us just how far from reality you have gone.
You are either a troll in which case you are terrible at it; or you are quite the ignorant delusional loner who is angry at the world.
Hemidemisemiquaver August 10th, 2014 at 01:32
“many Supreme Court cases”
DC vs Heller is many? In any event, a back-and-forth about this will accomplish nothing. Heller was wrongly decided and will eventually be overturned.
The rest of your comment is puerile. I especially love the troll comment. It must be a wingnut thing because every one I have talked to eventually gets around to the troll accusation. You must think it has some type of magical power that “wins” a discussion for you.
The fact remains that you are a 3per. That, in and of itself, is delusional. Playing with some of your guns out in public can be done in a number of states.
However, the chances of you using your guns in a 3per way will never occur. And, if I am wrong and it does, you will be crushed into oblivion very quickly. There are, on a national basis, hardly any 3pers, you have no organization of a military nature and all you have are a few guns in your closet. Yet, you dream of revolution. That’s a delusion if I’ve ever seen one.
You go on and on about the Constitution, but you ignore my comments on the reality you face, the fact that, as a 3per, nothing will ever happen in the manner you hope for. What will happen is that the occasional person (3per or not) will kill some innocent people, hoping to start the revolution. Those people will either be killed or arrested, convicted and sent away for a long time. Look up Byron Williams as an example of what I mean.
Sent Vanderboegh any money lately? You should because he needs some more steak dinners on your dime. And you call me delusional? You poor, sad, inadequate little man.
Brent Bushardt August 7th, 2014 at 08:42
You keep thinking of a regulated militia, not a well-regulated militia. Back to school for you!
Orrin Cratch July 17th, 2014 at 09:30
Mike in Illinois sounds like he is having a case of the Mondays. On Tuesday.
Note to Mike: there are effective anti-depressants out there. They’ll even help with that obvious anger management issue. And they’re covered under Obamacare.
Mike in Illinois July 17th, 2014 at 11:51
Orrin, there is no anger there, I wasn’t hollering – just emphasizing certain words that even SCOTUS has admitted. Interestingly, you demonstrated that you didn’t know that. Also, there is no anger because I will keep and bear my arms regardless of whether others approve or disapprove.
See Orrin, I actual feel sorrow for you folks, not anger or even disdain. As I said, you argue against your own right (not to own or carry) apparently without realizing it. Try seeing it from this angle – the right to own and carry is the same as the right not to. The power to decide belongs to you just as it belongs to me. A right, both privilege and immunity, means it is for the individual to decide upon, not government or even the democratic vote.
Claiming otherwise, as you portend, would put you in a position of saying your right to speak, to exercise religion, to assemble etc would be subject to government allowance and the whims of any particular democratic vote. You would be saying that your right to remain silent or even have a trial is open to a vote and could be simply removed from you by government mandate or as a result of a democratic vote.
I know some folks like to play as if “guns are different” but you have lost that position in the highest court possible. To quote – “The Second Amendment is no different.”
So instead of personal attacks, try offering some actual substance. You could try this – for some change we can all believe in.
Yes you have the right to own guns and carry guns. Yes you can by right even use them in defense of yourself your kin and even your property And you can even, by right carry them, long gun or handgun both openly and concealed, BUT no rights are unlimited and what is stated is as far as the Second goes. Meaning of course that one cannot use arms to rob rape steal or otherwise do actual harm to other people or their property with them. If a person does so, then serious punishment is afoot.
If you people would get on that track, you would find unity with gun rights activists and “hunters” alike. You see Orrin, guns aren’t the problem, which proves that banning and “control” over them isn’t the solution. How some people abuse them is the problem, proving that the solution rests in addressing people and their actions (as opposed to addressing inanimate objects).
I’m game for debate with you on various levels. We can talk about self evident, we can talk about enumeration, incorporation, privileges and immunities, due process, case law, commerce clause or any other angles you might want to explore and share and learn. The question now is pretty simple – is what you offered already all you have to offer or do you actually have substance to bring to the table beyond the politics of personal destruction?
NotALiar July 21st, 2014 at 00:50
What about the rights of my child sitting in a restaurant when six people with AR 15’s slung over their shoulders walk in and sit down next to us. Apparently she doesn’t have the right not to be scared and intimidated at arby’s.
Mike in Illinois July 22nd, 2014 at 15:11
First, nothing compels you to go to Arby’s. You make a choice to go there and have every right not to do so. Second, if your child is scare, it’s your responsibility to deal with that – same as if you are scared. Third, are you and your child scared when a person talks, meets a set of friends or carries a bible or a laptop? No? Why not? See, those are just rights bring exercised, and shouldn’t scare you. A person exercising their right to bear arms isn’t any different! You have just been conditioned to believe there is a difference. An irrational fear you exhibit there (kinda like me driving over a bridge…).
Now, if a person attempts to make YOU bless your curly fries before you eat them, they are indeed violating your rights. They are imposing THEIR decision upon you, attempting to anyway. Them carrying a gun is like them blessing their lunch. If they attempt to force YOU to carry, they are violating your rights. See the comparison? See the difference?
A person CARRYING a firearm should not concern you or scare you – as an aside, is this fear present when police officers openly carry arms? – though a person pointing one at you demanding your wallet or purse certainly could. (See the difference there?).
You certainly have a right to your own irrational fears – as I do mine- however, the presence of those fears does not translate into the authority to remove the rights ENUMERATED that belong to another.
I submit to you that you should stop looking at the gun and start looking at the person and their actual actions. Try thinking about this reality – for every person you SEE with a gun, ten twenty thirty more are carrying concealed! Are you now scared of everyone cuz they MIGHT be carrying? Is your daughter? See the whole irrational part yet? Seriously. Please see that people all around you carry guns both “legally” and “illegally” every day. But you and your family aren’t experiencing any trouble at Arby’s beyond your own within-your-own-mind “fear”. So I’ll close with … What exactly are you scared of and why? And most specifically. What right is it you refer to to begin with – a right not be scared? Ummm that right exists to be sure. It rests within your right to defend yourself…..interestingly, that’s found in the right to keep and bear arms……see it yet?
NotALiar July 22nd, 2014 at 15:28
As much as I disagree with you, I do appreciate you not responding “because” or something like that.
George Lopez July 16th, 2014 at 14:10
Where is the “Virgin Army” these days? Back on Momma’s sofa?
Orrin Cratch July 17th, 2014 at 09:28
I’m more worried about “The Virgin Ben” than the Virgin Army.
George Lopez July 16th, 2014 at 14:10
Where is the “Virgin Army” these days? Back on Momma’s sofa?
Orrin Cratch July 17th, 2014 at 09:28
I’m more worried about “The Virgin Ben” than the Virgin Army.
HappyClinger July 16th, 2014 at 16:55
The Three Percenters aren’t anti-government. That’s a lie. We are, however, anti- BIG – government, anti- TYRANNICAL – government, anti – SOCIALIST – government, anti – LAWLESS – government, and pro – CONSTITUTION, LAWFUL – government. And we all hate lies, get that?
HappyClinger July 16th, 2014 at 16:55
The Three Percenters aren’t anti-government. That’s a lie. We are, however, anti- BIG – government, anti- TYRANNICAL – government, anti – SOCIALIST – government, anti – LAWLESS – government, and pro – CONSTITUTION, LAWFUL – government. And we all hate lies, get that?
HappyClinger July 16th, 2014 at 16:55
The Three Percenters aren’t anti-government. That’s a lie. We are, however, anti- BIG – government, anti- TYRANNICAL – government, anti – SOCIALIST – government, anti – LAWLESS – government, and pro – CONSTITUTION, LAWFUL – government. And we all hate lies, get that?
WhamBamThanksBigO! July 16th, 2014 at 17:40
AND PRO SHIFT KEY!!!!!
Roger B. July 16th, 2014 at 18:06
You forgot anti-MINORITIES- Government – anti GAY- Government- anti- Women – Government- anti – COMMON SENSE- Government- anti – MOST EVERYTHING- government- anti SHIFT KEY – government – anti- ANTI- government- anti USING MORE THAN TREE PERCENT OF YOUR BRAINS – government. anti- ABILITY LEARNING HOW TO DRESS- government.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 16th, 2014 at 18:51
Super great. Questions: who gets to decide when government is too big? You? Who gets to decide what constitutes tyranny? You? (Pro tip: losing two elections to the black guy does not constitute tyranny.) Who decides when the government is lawless? You?
Finally, who provides the specific examples of said lawlessness? I ask because, to date, I have never seen an example of lawless behavior provided. Pro tip: when a decision is made by the government that you do not agree with, this does not constitute lawless behavior.
“And we all hate lies, get that?”
Fine. Just remember, we all hate empty accusations without any proof attached thereto. I get that. Do you?
Mike in Illinois July 17th, 2014 at 13:02
Some things are self evident.
Chicago and Illinois outright BANNED carrying arms for thirty years. The question really is how can that NOT be infringement.
If Illinois had banned for thirty years or banned carrying bibles for thirty years the exact same thing – how can it NOT be an abridging?
It’s not a “who gets to decide” question. It’s a who has the courage to admit it and who doesn’t.
Example –
I don’t much like what some people say. I think they ought not say certain things. I can even make a case that certain speech brings about violent behavior instantly. I’m sure you can think of examples too, right? But those realities do not translate into authority by me or millions of like minded people to step in or even get “government” to step in and ban/mandate certain speech – especially to a level of “liking” it.
See, how I “feel” about someone’s speech is not germane to their right to speak. They have it and are empowered by right to exercise it no matter how I feel about it.
The Second Amendment is no different. Quite frankly, neither are other rights, enumerated or not.
What I think you miss here is that even your question is answered in our founding and framing documents. They are, actually, decisions. They aren’t debating points. Now, you can disagree and openly talk about that (there’s that rights thing in action) but you and I have to respect that ultimate rule of law. Fine, you disagree. Then do so openly and honestly. You want gubmint to hold power over the right to arms? Then HONESTLY advocate repeal! For absent repeal, gubmint is limited by enumerated right.
Did you know that the Chicago Tribune actually did do once? Yeah, they closed comments and walked it back quickly. But not because of a moment of insight about guns. Nope. It was a moment of insight about rights. For if the right to arms could be repealed, why, so then could the right to a free press.
Can you say free press for them but not for YOU as a blogger? Do you realize that “debate” is actually happening within congress nowadays?
Truth is the real decider. Some choose to admit it, others don’t. Such is free will. So if you value your own rights, I suggest you protect and defend the rights of others – most especially when you disagree with their exercise and would choose differently. For if you do not, eventually most won’t and then, sadly, nobody will have any rights.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 17th, 2014 at 13:34
“I suggest you protect and defend the rights of others”
I am in favor of that.
However, the concept that we are collectively the militia is a mark of a crackpot. Everyone, everywhere is part of the militia. Then, there is no militia. Think of it as the thermodynamic heat death of the militia concept.
Then there is the well-regulated part. If we are, all of us, the collective militia, then there is no regulation. Which is, of course, why any meeting of “patriots’ degenerates into squabbles about who is in charge.
In any event, enjoy your guns and send all your money to people like Mike Vanderboegh. To do otherwise would be to hate America. You won’t ever get your Second American Revolution but you are welcome to your fantasy. If it’s what gets you through the night, then it’s OK by me.
Bye.
Mike in Illinois July 17th, 2014 at 14:53
Is it not the duty of the Citizenry of the whole to defend this nation? Is it not the express power of the congress to call forth the militia in a time of invasion in order to repel it? On who is called by the congress? Of course it’s the Citizenry upon which it calls!
When it calls upon the Citizenry, that formation of the militia into organized fashion meant bring your guns and the well regulated skills you have with them to the front where directed.
You sir, or ma’am, have a fundamental misunderstanding. You portend the word “regulated” means control. That simply is not the case and no reading of the words with their definitions together can mean as you wish.
It is not surprising you retreat from open debate, that you make half baked declarations, absent explanation via direct scrutiny, for you are an unarmed opponent in the information department.
Another fundamental misunderstanding you demonstrate is your claim that folks like me seek another civil war. We do not. Indeed we warn against it, explaining why one is afoot, because we understand that as a people we are supposed to be smarter than to fall into that trap – again. We are supposed to be able to solve things via the First Amendment instead resorting to the Second. (That’s why the framers out the first one first and the second one second). Notice it’s you rejecting that attempt at first amendment remedy…..
Understand this about HISTORY, please. Freemen will always, eventually, take up arms to defend threatened and usurped Liberty when it is threatened and usurped enough. There is a breaking point and there always has been. Blacks fought for freedoms, more than once. Whites have, so have all other “races”. Women you ask? Yup them too. See, there is no “race” even gender talking points to rely on. Gay straight and all the rest, none of it matters.
This because EQUALITY demands that each of us has a set of fundamental, self evident rights that are outside the government construct (including the democratic vote). We are endowed by our Creator with them, not government. Notice another message by the framers there? It doesn’t even matter who or what you believe create you, god, Buddha, Allah, or even your mom and dad….. The rights factor transcends that ever present exchange of ideas! That’s the POINT!
You say, hemi, that you respect this but you really don’t. This because you bring the “however”. Notice that the decisions called amendments don’t have such qualifiers leading to corruption.
Shall make no law.
Shall not be infringed.
Things get pretty simple when basic truth is admitted.
Example – I can want your speech curtailed all I want, but I and gubmint have no authority to curtail it. Likewise, you and gubmint have no authority to curtail my gun ownership or carriage. See how that whole “Rights” thing works??
Hemidemisemiquaver July 17th, 2014 at 17:05
“You portend the word “regulated” means control. That simply is not the
case and no reading of the words with their definitions together can
mean as you wish.”
Aside from the fact that to regulate something means to control it, I guess you’re correct.
“unarmed opponent in the information department.”
Wow, you “win.” Damn, wingnuts sure do like to declare victory. If it gets you through the night, then I’m OK with it. You keep declaring victory and, slowly but surely, conservatives will be forced from power all over the country. California is the future for many states. Super-majorities of Democrats in both legislative branches and all state-wide elected offices held by Democrats.
Go right ahead and keep telling yourself you’re “winning.” You’re not and, down inside where only you and God can go, you know it.
It occurred to me that another real-world consequence of the “everyone is in the militia” concept is the common excuse by “patriots” that they are there to “assist” law enforcement. Of course, law enforcement doesn’t was them around, but I guess that’s beside the point for you.
I’m getting long-winded explanations of prime examples of wignnut, but not a single reaction to my points about the real-world consequences of “everyone is in the militia. That’s because your ideas are shared within a small bubble and never really leave that bubble. The large percentage of citizens, when exposed to your ideas, react with horror.
Which is the correct reaction. And, over the next 10, 15, 20 years, it means Democrats will take more and more control from Republicans. And, once again, you know it. The desperate attempts to suppress the vote in many conservative states will eventually all fail. Not everywhere, but in enough places.
Keep spouting your weird-ass theories. In the real world, you’re losing. It will take time, but the victory is certain. And you know it.
Bye.
Orrin Cratch July 17th, 2014 at 09:27
“The Three Percenters aren’t anti-government.”
No. You see, I’ve actually read some of your shrill screeds. You hate the rule of law, and you seek to misinterpret current law, court rulings, and a Constitutional requirement that “bear[ing] arms” be tied to a state-sanctioned militia.
You and your fellow bullets-as-substitutes-for-our-inadequate-choads travelers are endemic liars and conmen.
Earl Scheib July 17th, 2014 at 09:40
You make some valid points, but the rule of law has become perverted by those entrusted with it. Politicians,Lawyers, Judges, Educators from all sides twist and manipulate ‘The Law’ to serve their own purpose.
Mike in Illinois July 17th, 2014 at 12:42
Are you lying or just wrong? Even the “case law” (last I checked the constitution delegates lawmaking to the legislature, not the judiciary) the claim you make here is not correct.
Heller v DC demolished your tied to state organized militia point.
Either you don’t know this, demonstrating your mistake, or you do and you are just lying. So which us it?
Will you man up and admit your mistake or will you just tout untruth going forward.
(Hint: you might want to read McDonald versus Chicago as well if you missed Heller).
Orrin, you are spouting dispelled nonsense about militia.
William July 17th, 2014 at 10:47
That’s a lie. We are, however, anti- BIG – government,
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-Obama
Translation:, outrageous unchecked spending by a lawless patriot act signing WHITE president, no problem. Government reduced to Eisenhower levels, deficit cut in half by a BLACK president, unacceptable.
Try reading something once in a while.
Mike in Illinois July 17th, 2014 at 13:04
Yet it is a outright lie that presidents “spend”.
Congress holds the power of the purse – not the executive.
Try truth. It’s actually true.
HappyClinger July 16th, 2014 at 16:55
The Three Percenters aren’t anti-government. That’s a lie. We are, however, anti- BIG – government, anti- TYRANNICAL – government, anti – SOCIALIST – government, anti – LAWLESS – government, and pro – CONSTITUTION, LAWFUL – government. And we all hate lies, get that?
WhamBamThanksBigO! July 16th, 2014 at 17:40
AND PRO SHIFT KEY!!!!!
Roger July 16th, 2014 at 18:06
You forgot anti-MINORITIES- Government – anti GAY- Government- anti- Women – Government- anti – COMMON SENSE- Government- anti – MOST EVERYTHING- government- anti SHIFT KEY – government – anti- ANTI- government- anti USING MORE THAN TREE PERCENT OF YOUR BRAINS – government. anti- ABILITY LEARNING HOW TO DRESS- government.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 16th, 2014 at 18:51
Super great. Questions: who gets to decide when government is too big? You? Who gets to decide what constitutes tyranny? You? (Pro tip: losing two elections to the black guy does not constitute tyranny.) Who decides when the government is lawless? You?
Finally, who provides the specific examples of said lawlessness? I ask because, to date, I have never seen an example of lawless behavior provided. Pro tip: when a decision is made by the government that you do not agree with, this does not constitute lawless behavior.
“And we all hate lies, get that?”
Fine. Just remember, we all hate empty accusations without any proof attached thereto. I get that. Do you?
Mike in Illinois July 17th, 2014 at 13:02
Some things are self evident.
Chicago and Illinois outright BANNED carrying arms for thirty years. The question really is how can that NOT be infringement.
If Illinois had banned for thirty years or banned carrying bibles for thirty years the exact same thing – how can it NOT be an abridging?
It’s not a “who gets to decide” question. It’s a who has the courage to admit it and who doesn’t.
Example –
I don’t much like what some people say. I think they ought not say certain things. I can even make a case that certain speech brings about violent behavior instantly. I’m sure you can think of examples too, right? But those realities do not translate into authority by me or millions of like minded people to step in or even get “government” to step in and ban/mandate certain speech – especially to a level of “liking” it.
See, how I “feel” about someone’s speech is not germane to their right to speak. They have it and are empowered by right to exercise it no matter how I feel about it.
The Second Amendment is no different. Quite frankly, neither are other rights, enumerated or not.
What I think you miss here is that even your question is answered in our founding and framing documents. They are, actually, decisions. They aren’t debating points. Now, you can disagree and openly talk about that (there’s that rights thing in action) but you and I have to respect that ultimate rule of law. Fine, you disagree. Then do so openly and honestly. You want gubmint to hold power over the right to arms? Then HONESTLY advocate repeal! For absent repeal, gubmint is limited by enumerated right.
Did you know that the Chicago Tribune actually did do once? Yeah, they closed comments and walked it back quickly. But not because of a moment of insight about guns. Nope. It was a moment of insight about rights. For if the right to arms could be repealed, why, so then could the right to a free press.
Can you say free press for them but not for YOU as a blogger? Do you realize that “debate” is actually happening within congress nowadays?
Truth is the real decider. Some choose to admit it, others don’t. Such is free will. So if you value your own rights, I suggest you protect and defend the rights of others – most especially when you disagree with their exercise and would choose differently. For if you do not, eventually most won’t and then, sadly, nobody will have any rights.
Hemidemisemiquaver July 17th, 2014 at 13:34
“I suggest you protect and defend the rights of others”
I am in favor of that.
However, the concept that we are collectively the militia is a mark of a crackpot. Everyone, everywhere is part of the militia. Then, there is no militia. Think of it as the thermodynamic heat death of the militia concept.
Then there is the well-regulated part. If we are, all of us, the collective militia, then there is no regulation. Which is, of course, why any meeting of “patriots’ degenerates into squabbles about who is in charge.
In any event, enjoy your guns and send all your money to people like Mike Vanderboegh. To do otherwise would be to hate America. You won’t ever get your Second American Revolution but you are welcome to your fantasy. If it’s what gets you through the night, then it’s OK by me.
Bye.
Mike in Illinois July 17th, 2014 at 14:53
Is it not the duty of the Citizenry of the whole to defend this nation? Is it not the express power of the congress to call forth the militia in a time of invasion in order to repel it? On who is called by the congress? Of course it’s the Citizenry upon which it calls!
When it calls upon the Citizenry, that formation of the militia into organized fashion meant bring your guns and the well regulated skills you have with them to the front where directed.
You sir, or ma’am, have a fundamental misunderstanding. You portend the word “regulated” means control. That simply is not the case and no reading of the words with their definitions together can mean as you wish.
It is not surprising you retreat from open debate, that you make half baked declarations, absent explanation via direct scrutiny, for you are an unarmed opponent in the information department.
Another fundamental misunderstanding you demonstrate is your claim that folks like me seek another civil war. We do not. Indeed we warn against it, explaining why one is afoot, because we understand that as a people we are supposed to be smarter than to fall into that trap – again. We are supposed to be able to solve things via the First Amendment instead resorting to the Second. (That’s why the framers out the first one first and the second one second). Notice it’s you rejecting that attempt at first amendment remedy…..
Understand this about HISTORY, please. Freemen will always, eventually, take up arms to defend threatened and usurped Liberty when it is threatened and usurped enough. There is a breaking point and there always has been. Blacks fought for freedoms, more than once. Whites have, so have all other “races”. Women you ask? Yup them too. See, there is no “race” even gender talking points to rely on. Gay straight and all the rest, none of it matters.
This because EQUALITY demands that each of us has a set of fundamental, self evident rights that are outside the government construct (including the democratic vote). We are endowed by our Creator with them, not government. Notice another message by the framers there? It doesn’t even matter who or what you believe create you, god, Buddha, Allah, or even your mom and dad….. The rights factor transcends that ever present exchange of ideas! That’s the POINT!
You say, hemi, that you respect this but you really don’t. This because you bring the “however”. Notice that the decisions called amendments don’t have such qualifiers leading to corruption.
Shall make no law.
Shall not be infringed.
Things get pretty simple when basic truth is admitted.
Example – I can want your speech curtailed all I want, but I and gubmint have no authority to curtail it. Likewise, you and gubmint have no authority to curtail my gun ownership or carriage. See how that whole “Rights” thing works??
Hemidemisemiquaver July 17th, 2014 at 17:05
“You portend the word “regulated” means control. That simply is not the
case and no reading of the words with their definitions together can
mean as you wish.”
Aside from the fact that to regulate something means to control it, I guess you’re correct.
“unarmed opponent in the information department.”
Wow, you “win.” Damn, wingnuts sure do like to declare victory. If it gets you through the night, then I’m OK with it. You keep declaring victory and, slowly but surely, conservatives will be forced from power all over the country. California is the future for many states. Super-majorities of Democrats in both legislative branches and all state-wide elected offices held by Democrats.
Go right ahead and keep telling yourself you’re “winning.” You’re not and, down inside where only you and God can go, you know it.
It occurred to me that another real-world consequence of the “everyone is in the militia” concept is the common excuse by “patriots” that they are there to “assist” law enforcement. Of course, law enforcement doesn’t was them around, but I guess that’s beside the point for you.
I’m getting long-winded explanations of prime examples of wignnut, but not a single reaction to my points about the real-world consequences of “everyone is in the militia. That’s because your ideas are shared within a small bubble and never really leave that bubble. The large percentage of citizens, when exposed to your ideas, react with horror.
Which is the correct reaction. And, over the next 10, 15, 20 years, it means Democrats will take more and more control from Republicans. And, once again, you know it. The desperate attempts to suppress the vote in many conservative states will eventually all fail. Not everywhere, but in enough places.
Keep spouting your weird-ass theories. In the real world, you’re losing. It will take time, but the victory is certain. And you know it.
Bye.
Orrin Cratch July 17th, 2014 at 09:27
“The Three Percenters aren’t anti-government.”
No. You see, I’ve actually read some of your shrill screeds. You hate the rule of law, and you seek to misinterpret current law, court rulings, and a Constitutional requirement that “bear[ing] arms” be tied to a state-sanctioned militia.
You and your fellow bullets-as-substitutes-for-our-inadequate-choads travelers are endemic liars and conmen.
Serendipity July 17th, 2014 at 09:40
You make some valid points, but the rule of law has become perverted by those entrusted with it. Politicians,Lawyers, Judges, Educators from all sides twist and manipulate ‘The Law’ to serve their own purpose.
Mike in Illinois July 17th, 2014 at 12:42
Are you lying or just wrong? Even the “case law” (last I checked the constitution delegates lawmaking to the legislature, not the judiciary) the claim you make here is not correct.
Heller v DC demolished your tied to state organized militia point.
Either you don’t know this, demonstrating your mistake, or you do and you are just lying. So which us it?
Will you man up and admit your mistake or will you just tout untruth going forward.
(Hint: you might want to read McDonald versus Chicago as well if you missed Heller).
Orrin, you are spouting dispelled nonsense about militia.
William July 17th, 2014 at 10:47
That’s a lie. We are, however, anti- BIG – government,
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-Obama
Translation:, outrageous unchecked spending by a lawless patriot act signing WHITE president, no problem. Government reduced to Eisenhower levels, deficit cut in half by a BLACK president, unacceptable.
Try reading something once in a while.
Mike in Illinois July 17th, 2014 at 13:04
Yet it is a outright lie that presidents “spend”.
Congress holds the power of the purse – not the executive.
Try truth. It’s actually true.
CommanderOgg July 20th, 2014 at 18:25
@HappyClinger You’re also FOS. As the writter Matt Taibbi said most clearly:
But after lengthy study… I’ve concluded that the whole miserable narrative boils down to one stark fact: They’re full of shit. All of them….the Tea Party …purports to be furious about government spending — only the reality is that the vast majority of its members are former Bush supporters who yawned through two terms of record deficits…The average Tea Partier is sincerely against government spending — with the exception of the money spent on them. In fact, their lack of embarrassment when it comes to collecting government largesse is key to understanding what this movement is all about….
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-on-the-tea-party-20100928#ixzz3839LW1Ce
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
YourRealityCheckHasBounced July 17th, 2014 at 21:56
This is exactly the sort of insurrectionist that the well regulated militia according to article I section 8 of the US Constitution exists to fight. This is the exact wording of the clause that the second amendment was written to support. Look up Shay’s rebellion.
YourRealityCheckHasBounced July 17th, 2014 at 21:56
This is exactly the sort of insurrectionist that the well regulated militia according to article I section 8 of the US Constitution exists to fight. This is the exact wording of the clause that the second amendment was written to support. Look up Shay’s rebellion.
MaryAnn July 17th, 2014 at 22:27
It’s really NOT about your rights to have a gun, but whether you are so mentally unbalanced and paranoid you think you must have a gun.
These are the people we should worry about…bullys and cowards with battle ship mouths and row boat asses. Ready to shoot the first thing that moves…
MaryAnn July 17th, 2014 at 22:27
It’s really NOT about your rights to have a gun, but whether you are so mentally unbalanced and paranoid you think you must have a gun.
These are the people we should worry about…bullys and cowards with battle ship mouths and row boat asses. Ready to shoot the first thing that moves…
greenfloyd July 21st, 2014 at 02:11
Isn’t it great we live in a country (US) where people can speak their minds, no matter how misinformed or deranged. It’s all about Freedom of Speech, or more accurately, Freedom of the Press. Of course with this freedom comes great responsibility.
I question the wisdom of putting this guy in front of a mic and giving him a national audience, to advocate the use of violence. I doubt this guy and his group represent three percent of anything. I think both Alan and Fox News should apologize for abusing our most sacred law.
floyd[@]greenfloyd.org July 21st, 2014 at 02:11
Isn’t it great we live in a country (US) where people can speak their minds, no matter how misinformed or deranged. It’s all about Freedom of Speech, or more accurately, Freedom of the Press. Of course with this freedom comes great responsibility.
I question the wisdom of putting this guy in front of a mic and giving him a national audience, to advocate the use of violence. I doubt this guy and his group represent three percent of anything. I think both Alan and Fox News should apologize for abusing our most sacred law.
Michael Myers April 14th, 2016 at 13:31
Love reading the posts by the Leftie fascist wing nuts. I can almost audibly hear the fear in them. They know that their days are numbered. It will take time, but our victory is certain. They won’t admit it, but they know it. We will win.
That is all.
whatthe46 April 14th, 2016 at 13:54
there’s counseling for what you have. you better seek it and quick before you hurt yourself.
Michael Myers April 14th, 2016 at 14:00
LMAO What an original and absolutely pithy retort! I have never before been exposed to that thought from anyone. I lie here, mortally wounded, skewered by your rapier-like wit. Obviously you formerly wrote for Letterman.
We will win.
That is all
whatthe46 April 14th, 2016 at 15:07
you’re quite the slow one. that’s expected of paranoid lunatics. 2 years and you haven’t done shit yet. stop your whining and seek help for that. medication won’t do anything for the stupidity you’re also suffering from, but, it might make the voices stop.
OldLefty April 26th, 2016 at 12:41
Are you doing schtick?
Michael Myers April 26th, 2016 at 12:32
LOLOLOLOLOLOL Oh my, an even more original and profound retort. And so emotional. I see that I obviously struck a nerve. How pathetically typical of a Leftie fascist wingnut. Bravo!